# Guitar Build 7: Fretboard Inlays

Featured

[From the build on 1/5/2017] This week we worked more as a team and began concentrated time on our fretboards.

Using the acrylic template, Ryan drew a line along the front edge of the bodies where the neck will join. Here we differ slightly from the standard Les Paul, in which the tangent to the top curve is vertical where it joins the neck. Our curve curls under just a bit, giving the body a distinctive look. That also means a different angle for the front edge. Ryan cut on the bandsaw then finished on a belt sander. (Thanks Ryan!)

Meanwhile, Ted took the mahogany stock we used for our bodies to cut blanks for our necks—standard face joint, plane, edge joint, rip cut prep. He also ripped a trough precisely in the center that will hold the truss rod.

Most of the night was consumed with fretboards. Rather than center dots, Ted set us up for edge inserts at all the standard frets (3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 19), with a double insert at the 12. We started by marking the cut lines, then moved to the drill press where a bit exactly matching the inlays was installed. The depth of this cut is critical—it must be deep enough so that when the (fretboard and fret markers) are sanded we don’t sand through the inlay on the edge, but not so deep that the cut exceeds the height of the inlay. As always, set up is crucial.

After making the cuts, we rounded the corners of the inlay pieces so they would fit exactly into the routed grooves in the fretboard. To do this, we simply rounded them with sandpaper by hand. The inlay is paoa abalone, but I tried not to go for the really colorful parts so that the marker would still have significant contrast against the ebony fretboard.

Next, the Superglue. I hate Superglue! Commitment is hard enough, but commit with a deadline in 45 seconds is the pits. We used 20 Superglue, applied with a toothpick to get it into the groove, then set the inlay pieces in one by one. And that’s where we left it for the night.

# Guitar Build 6: The Magic 4 Degrees

Featured

I am behind 4 weeks now on blogging the build, so this post covers the December 29, 2016 session.

We had two tasks to accomplish this first week. First was to skim the front of our tops at a 4 degree angle to allow the neck to join the body at just the right angle. Apparently this magic angle comes from Les Pauls made between 1954 and the late 1960s, when they were made in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Afterward, the neck-to-body angle was increased to 5 degrees and more (all according to “How to Make Your Electric Guitar Play Great!” by Dan Erlewine).

We mounted the bodies on a large metalworking router that features a table that can be moved very precisely. So, instead of moving the router bit through the workpiece, we move the workpiece under the bit for more control. As with so many operations in woodworking, the setup is the key. Once the angle is set and the workpiece secured, the rest is pretty easy.

The second task was to cut a wide groove in the top to receive the neck. This is one of several operations that must be done precisely, because lack of fit where the neck joins the body affects the sound. So of course, I goofed this up! Somehow I moved the piece too far into the bit and I carved out too much of the maple top (see photo). Alas, I lucked out again because this part of the top will be cut out for the pickups anyway. As they say, “I’d rather be lucky than good.” Actually, I’d like to be good too.

# Guitar Build 5: Bugs in Wood

Featured

Engineers are frequently accused of seeing everything as black or white, which is one reason woodworking is good for my soul. Imperfections in materials and overcoming mistakes are what it’s all about.

This week I had to deal with another misstep, this time on my top. We began the night planing our maple tops to thickness (5/8″). As always, we jointed one face, then used the planer and then the belt sanding planer (a monster!) to get to precise thickness. At this point, the top is pretty smooth and showing off its curly grain self. The process of exposing beautiful wood grain is something like sculpture—the beauty is in there somewhere, we just need to take away what’s hiding it.

After planing away a fair bit of the top, it turns out that the insect damage had “moved” toward the center of the guitar. As I said in my first post, I took a gamble on this piece of maple, knowing that the bug damage was close to the edge of the body. Alas, it had migrated to the top and bottom edges (see photo).

We have two ways forward. The binding will partially cover some of this scar, and the remaining should be hidden in the dark brown outer edge of a tobacco sunburst. Ted offered a second way: we could modify the shape slightly to cut out these imperfections (top and bottom). Messing with the design of the master makes me nervous!

After drilling registration holes with the same template used for the body, we glued top to body. I discovered another interesting part of electric guitars here—one of the cavities has no electronics and is completely devoted to resonance! I had no idea a “solid body” guitar had such a cavity. There you go.

We finished the night bringing the edges of the fretboard into line and at the proper width. Because of a bandsaw error, mine had to be brought in a little under width. We’ll compensate for this error with a touch of extra binding.

While we were working on fretboards, Ted cut some 1/8″ maple strips for edge binding the fretboards. We glued these strips to a mahogany veneer, so the fretboard will have an “ebony to mahogany to maple” edge. Should be nice.

## Production Notes

• Avoid maple tops with bug damage 🙂
• Dry fit everything before gluing! I got lucky on the top to body glue up, which I did without dry fitting.
• A good, straight edge on the sides of the fretboard is more important than the width. Compensate for imperfections in width with the binding.
• Glue will seep through a veneer, so go light on the glue and make sure to put down wax paper first.
• Be careful reading calipers! It is very easy to misread this device.

# Guitar Build 4: The mathematics of fretboards

Featured

Apparently, we have Pythagoras to thank for the musical scale. Using a device called the monochord, he was the first to notice the relationship between string length and octaves—namely, that halving the length of a string produces the same note one octave higher. An octave is twice the frequency of the original note (ratio 2:1).

He also noticed that certain notes sound good together, a concept called consonance. For example, the note we call E sounds good with A. E is created from A (as its fifth) with the string ratio 3:2. A has frequency $f=110$ cycles per second (cps), so E has frequency $\frac{3}{2}f =165$ cps. D is created from A with ratio 4:3 (as its fourth) with frequency $\frac{4}{3}f$. And so on. Not all simple ratios produce consonance with A (5:4 does not), but using fourths and fifths around A, D, and E, we can produce a pentatonic scale.

At some point we decided 12 was the right number of notes, so the task was to produce a set of 11 frequencies between $f$ and $2f$ that “sounded right.” The search eventually produced “the tempered scale” having the property $f(n)=a f(n-1)$. This is a recursion, so $f(2) = a f(1)$; $f(3) = a f(2) = a^2f(1)$; $f(4) = a f(3) = a^3f(1)$; and so on until we get $f(12) = a^{12}f(1)$. But we also know $f(12)=2f(1)$, so $2f(1) = a^{12}f(1)$ and our constant

$a = \sqrt[\leftroot{-2}\uproot{3}12]{2} \approx 1.059463094359295264561825294946341700779204317494185628559.$

(Much of the above comes from a nice article at Noyce Guitars.)

We are interested in the distance between frets on a fretboard, or to avoid accumulating errors, the distance from the nut to a particular fret. If the length of the string is $s$, the distance to the $n$th fret has the formula:

$d[s,n]=s-\frac{s}{2^{n/12}}.$

Notice that for the 12th fret,

$2^{12/12}=2,$

and we divide the string in half, as expected. See this nice article for a fret spacing calculator. So there we have it, a nice way to calculate the distance from the nut to each fret. Because cuts this precise would have taken so much time and because they are so critical to the sound, we ordered our fretboards from a guitar parts distributor.

This week we glued up our maple tops in the same way we glued the two piece mahogany backs. Both faces had been planed, so we had only to joint one side of each piece and then glue and clamp.

Next we turned to the fretboard. After marking the width at the zero and 16th frets last week, we were ready to mark the cut lines and trim them on the band saw, leaving about 1/8th inch room to bring them down to exact shape with the bench plane. For the planing, we are using Ted’s “shooting board,” which is a jig that allows use of the plane as an edge jointer. I finished the night with my fretboard edges straightened, but I will have to remove more stock next week to bring it to the right width. We are checking the width with calipers, because width at the 16th fret is critical for the guitar’s cutaway to fair into the neck properly.

## Production Notes

• When cutting the fretboard on the bandsaw, leave the cut proud! You’ll take this off with the bench plane anyway.
• Razor sharp and tuned plane is essential for every woodworking operation.
• Need to build a shooting board for fretboard trimming.
Featured

# Guitar Build 3: Routing the body

One of the fun parts of a project like this is being made to think about things I just never noticed in the past. For example, why does a Fender Stratocaster have a large faceplate, when the Gibson Les Paul does not? Answer: the Strat has a one piece body, so the only way to get the electronics inside is to rout out the face, which leaves a hole that must be covered. The Strat also has a cavity in the back for tremolo springs.

To allow for a beautiful wooden top requires a two piece body (not counting the two pieces that make up each piece of the two pieces!). As I covered in a previous post, we’re making a mahogany body (the back) and a curly maple top.

So, this past Thursday we spent most of our time on routing cavities into the backs of our guitars for electronics. The front side of the back, which will be covered with the maple top, has two large cavities and a channel for the selector switch. The back side of the back also has a cavity to allow for the control knobs.

After being glued up last week, the two piece mahogany backs needed to be prepared and brought to proper thickness (1 3/4″). As always, we began by jointing one side, which is a “you can’t do this at home” operation. My jointer at home can handle stock 4″ wide, but our bodies are 14″ or so. Not to worry: Ted’s industrial strength jointer handles 16″ stock!

Next, we brought the back to approximately the right thickness on the planer. Most planers for home use are 13″, I think, so this operation requires a shop as well. Ted’s planer is 20″. After planing, we brought the piece to just the right thickness with a huge belt sander that operates just like a planer. This machine is impressive.

At this point, we drilled “registration holes” to which we will affix templates for the routing and perhaps other things. Instead of using the router to remove all the stock, we used a Forstner bit to remove most of the stock, then finished the job with an inverted router. This is where I made my first blunder:  When using a router, the direction you push the stock is critical.  It turns out I was supposed to rotate the piece counter-clockwise when the router is inverted and cutting an inside edge (see this helpful Woodcraft article). I rotated the wrong way, causing the bit to “jump,” and somehow the bit removed stock outside the template (it probably moved). Ted is pretty sure the back plate will cover the goof. We shall see.

Finally, we planed off the burn marks from our maple tops, and then bookmatched them for the best look. Can’t wait to see these babies finished!

## Production Notes

• Prepare the mahogany back in the usual way. Face jointing requires a 16″ jointer. Planing requires a 20″ planer.
• Placement of registration holes is critical.
• On an inverted router, rotate the piece counter-clockwise on an inside cut! Read the Woodcraft article before proceeding—don’t goof this up!

# This is what it’s all about

Featured

I am pleased to announce that last Wednesday, Parvaneh Jahani successfully defended her dissertation entitled, “Dynamic Warehouse Optimization Using Predictive Analytics.” Congratulations Parvaneh — Dr. Jahani!

Shortly after I arrived to UofL, I was told that Parvaneh might be interested in working on logistics problems. She had already done some initial work in quality, so I encouraged her to continue with her current area of research and not to change topics. Nevertheless, she insisted that she wanted a topic in logistics, so we began The Search.

Eventually she identified the simple question: “When a slot goes empty in the forward picking area of a warehouse, what should replace it?” The standard answer to that question is, “the same sku that it held before,” but Parvaneh was interested in how the skus in the forward area might change over time as demand changes. For example, perhaps the empty slot would be better used for a new sku experiencing strong demand. How should one make these decisions?

In practice, most warehouses establish a forward area based on historical demand, then managers worry continually if it’s time to “reslot the forward area.” Parvaneh’s research answers this and many related questions. Most important, she develops an algorithm that changes the composition of the forward area continuously, in order to reflect current demand patterns. Papers on these topics are on the way.

I am also pleased to report that Parvaneh has taken a challenging position at Intelligrated, a large material handling systems integrator near Cincinnati, where she is working on several interesting topics, including those related to her dissertation.

I wish you the best of success, Parvaneh!

Featured

# Guitar Build 2

After a week off for Thanksgiving, we gathered this week to continue the build. We started by choosing stock for our curly maple tops and ebony fretboards. Unfortunately, I had third choice of the stock, so I took a chance on a maple piece with an interesting bluish scar left by an insect (see photo). The hope was that the damage was mainly on the surface and not near the middle. More on this below.

I chose a fretboard with quite a bit of “brindle”—light brown streaks in the dark brown wood, because it reminded me of Remington, our new Boston Terrier. Rather than risking imprecise placement of fret locations, our instructor Ted Harlan orders his fretboards from Stewart-McDonald, a guitar supply source. He chose a 25″ fretboard, which is slightly longer than the traditional Les Paul, but not as long as a Strat. I’m not sure about the tonal implications.

Next we glued up the two piece mahogany backs we prepared on day one.

“Bookmatching” the two pieces is a simple but fun task to make the two pieces appear to be one. I was especially pleased with my match.

After setting the backs aside to dry, we turned to the maple tops. Prepping curly maple is difficult because the grain goes every which way (that’s what makes it so pretty). Fortunately, at this stage we’re not so worried about finish. The maple is 2″ thick, and we need only 5/8″ for the top, so we resawed the pieces (cut them in half lengthwise) on the bandsaw.

We were hoping the insect damage on my piece was local and only on the one surface, but it turned out not to be so. The damage was throughout the piece, but fortunately far enough toward the edge that we should be able to cut out the top and avoid the blemish entirely. After the resaw, the maple pieces “sprung” just a bit, as tension in the wood released. We decided to give them a week to get used to their new condition before moving forward with the glue up.

We finished the night by working on our fretboards. Using a 1970s era Les Paul as a guide, Ted measured the width at the zero fret and the 16th fret, where the neck will join the body. We used calipers to get a precise width, divided by two, and then pencil marked a centerline using a grade school compass. This operation must be done exactly!

The source for all this fun: Ted Harlan Woodworking School.

## Production Notes

• Always dry fit before gluing.
• After bookmatching, mark a large triangle over the face, then joint both joining edges. Mark one edge “Inside” and one “Outside”—as indicators for how to place each piece against the jointer fence. By marking them opposite, we compensate for any lack of square in the jointer fence.
• When gluing the back, clamp from the center out. Don’t use too much glue! Use clamps on the ends as necessary to bring them into alignment. Don’t worry about squeeze out at this point. We’ll scrape it off later.
• Prepare the maple stock in the normal way: face joint, plane, edge joint, rip to width on table saw. Avoid tear out on the jointer by cutting with the grain, not into it.
• On a table saw: rip with a rip blade, cross cut with a cross cut blade. Yes, take the time to change them.
• When scoring the edge of the maple for resawing, set the marking tool slightly off center, then turn and score again. This way, we leave a narrow gap within which to keep the saw, rather than trying to keep a single line perfectly.
• Resaw the maple slowly to avoid burning the wood or overheating the blade. Pay attention to drift; all bandsaws drift.
• Use calipers to get precise width of the zero and 16th frets. Mark the middle of the fretboard with a grade school compass, then mark the width of these two frets.
• Use the bandsaw and a hand plane to shape the fretboard (next week).

# My new guitar

Featured

A completely non-professional post today!

Some of you may know that I played guitar (way) back in high school. I played just a little in college and have played only sporadically since then. A few years ago—thank you, midlife!—I picked up my acoustic and began plunking around again. It has been lots of fun. More on that in the future.

What I have not renewed is the electric guitar, which was my staple in high school. I sold my last electric in the mid-1990s, and have not owned one since. At the urging of some friends, I started shopping for a guitar several months ago, but could not convince myself to pull the trigger on something that expensive that I’m not sure I would even use.

Enter my interest in woodworking. A few months ago I happened upon the Ted Harlan Woodworking School, where I recently completed my first project. It turns out that Ted also offers guitar building classes. Can you say, irresistible? I thought you could.

Thursday night was the first of what will be about 25 sessions to complete an electric build. I hope to blog the entire process over the next several months. We are building a “Les Paul like” guitar with a mahogany body, curly maple top, and P-90 or humbucker pickups (I’m leaning toward humbuckers, but won’t have to commit for awhile). The shape will be similar but not identical to the Les Paul.

Thursday night we spent time talking about the process and then got right to work. The guitar body will consist of a mahogany back and curly maple top. The mahogany stock for the body and neck is 8/4 stock (2″ thick), which we will take down to 1 3/4″ and glue up for a two piece back. The curly maple stock that will become the tops is gorgeous (see photo).

We have two weeks off for Thanksgiving. In the meantime, I am shopping for pickups, tuners, and thinking about inlay for my fretboard. So many crucial decisions!

Until next time….

## Production Notes

• 8/4 mahogany stock for the body and curly maple for the top (could use 4/4 for the top, since it will be 5/8″ thick).
• Stock prep: Use bandsaw to rip first (7 1/4″ width), then face joint, edge joint, plane the opposite face, and rip to 7 1/8″, in that order. Width of body pieces at this point is 7 1/8″. (We’re aiming for 14″ after glue up of the two pieces and finishing.)
• Face joint with the bow side up. Minimize rocking.
• Edge joint with bandsaw side down such that top edge leans out, not bottom edge out. This allows hand pressure nearer the top of the fence rather than the bottom, for a safer jointing.
• When planing, push second piece in immediately after the first to prevent rollers from resetting and sniping the piece again.

# Optimal Block Stacking

Featured

I am pleased to announce that Shahab Derhami, Jeff Smith and I have just had a manuscript accepted in International Journal of Production Research entitled, “Optimizing Space Utilization in Block Stacking Warehouses.” Congratulations especially to Shahab—this is the first paper from his dissertation research!

The origin of this paper was a consulting engagement Jeff and I had with a beverage manufacturer, in which pallets roll off a production line and then are stored for a time before shipping. The finished goods warehouse uses deep lane block stacking, as is common in many large lot, unit load handling environments. The company wanted to know how deep lanes should be to make the best use of space.

Block stacking warehouses waste space in two ways: aisles to allow lift truck travel and partially filled lanes, which another sku cannot occupy because it would block access to the sku already stored there. As explained in Bartholdi and Hackman’s textbook, each lane makes a contribution to both types of waste. If lanes are too shallow, then too much storage space is devoted to aisles; if too deep, then too much storage lane space is wasted. An optimal design balances this tradeoff.

The academic literature has well-known results for optimal lane depth in the case of instantaneous resupply, which is appropriate for warehouses storing product received from suppliers. Pallets for a particular sku arrive at the same time, so the production rate is “infinite.” A second assumption behind existing results is continuous demand, rather than discrete demand. Our paper relaxes both of these assumptions: production rate can be finite—even less than the rate of demand, and demand is discrete. (The production rate can be less than the rate of demand if demand is only intermittent. Imagine all demand for a particular sku happening only on Friday, for example.) The paper develops approximations for the optimal lane depths for block stacking areas with one or multiple skus.

The main insight we develop in the paper is that using the infinite production rate model in a finite production rate environment produces lane depths about twice as deep as they should be, but that the resulting loss of space is modest (less than about 2 percent). Said another way, the space utilization curve, as a function of lane depth, is quite flat.

However, shorter, optimal lanes means more aisles and therefore more flexibility with respect to travel for lift truck drivers or autonomous vehicles. The effects of lane depth on travel costs have not been considered in our work or in the literature.

# The Age of Excess Capacity

Featured

For the past several months I have been thinking about trends in the logistics industry and in the economy as a whole. The rate of innovation is so high right now that I have been unable to think categorically about it all. What I mean is, I would like to be able to see a news piece about a company with a great idea and think, “Right, that‘s another example of this.” My problem has been that I just haven’t been able to assemble a coherent list of “thises.” Today’s post is my attempt to define a “this” for the gig economy.

Before I get to my Organizing Principle, a personal story:  In 2004 I gave an INFORMS presentation that included a very unsatisfying conjecture I had worked unsuccessfully to prove for about three months. I was “sure” my method produced optimal solutions, and had worked both to prove the result and to disprove it by counterexample, all to no avail. Knowing the presentation would be attended by about thirty colleagues and Ph.D. students, I decided to make my claim (the conjecture) and then offer $100 to the first person who could disprove it. Assuming each person gave only 10 minutes of thought to it, I would get 5 hours of work and a proof (by counterexample) that my method was not optimal, all for$100—not bad; else, I would get the work for free.

After my talk, I was told that people were actively working on my problem in the elevator as they returned to their rooms. Alas, the next morning my friend Samir Amiouny produced a counterexample that led to a minor modification of my algorithm, which then produced his solution as well. Without knowing it, I had just used “the crowd” to solve a knotty technical problem.

I didn’t think in these terms at the time, but my experiment was successful because it tapped into the otherwise unused intellectual capacity of my audience. Had they not been given a nice little problem to think about, my audience might have left the presentation and engaged in something unproductive like small talk or going to coffee—instead of, you know, working on my problem! The experiment was also successful because the seminar itself served as a coordinating mechanism that gave a common understanding of the task and established the rules. Finally, I had offered them an incentive to work voluntarily on my problem, thereby selecting from the audience the most willing and motivated problem solvers.

It is important to note that I probably did not attract the most capable problem solvers, only the most willing and motivated. Had I offered $100,000 instead of$100, I suspect I would have attracted the efforts of the entire group, including the most capable problem solvers. The level of reward determines the capability of the talent pool.

And now to the gig economy at large. I might be the last to realize this, but it seems that the Organizing Principle around gig economy businesses is something like this:

Find excess capacity in resources, organizations, systems, and individuals and then create a coordinating mechanism that allows providers, for a price, to offer their capacity voluntarily and spontaneously.

In other words, there is a lot of excess capacity out there, if people and organizations are willing to make it available. We have entered The Age of Excess Capacity, in which resources can be productive much more of the time. Why hasn’t this been done in the past? We have lacked the coordinating mechanisms, a void now filled by apps and mobile computing. Now, some examples of Excess Capacity Businesses.

Uber is the most famous example of an Excess Capacity Business. The genius behind Uber was the realization that empty seats (unused capacity) fill the highways and streets of every city in the world, and the drivers of some of those seats might be willing to volunteer them to people needing a ride. Why was this never done before? Before Uber, there was no coordinating mechanism between the drivers and potential customers, so customers could not participate; and there was no reward, so drivers had no incentive to participate. Note the key elements: a coordinating mechanism and a reward for providers.

AirBnB is also an Excess Capacity Business, based on the observation that an empty bedroom is “unused storage capacity” for people. Every day millions of people drive past empty residential bedrooms to pay $100 per night to stay in sterile hotel rooms. Enter a coordinating mechanism (AirBnB software) and a reward for the provider (rent), and presto—a billion dollar company. Maketime is an Excess Capacity Business in manufacturing that attempts to match customers with idle machines (via software, the coordinating mechanism), giving manufacturers higher rates of utilization on their existing assets and therefore a higher rate of return (reward). Co-creation in product development (e.g., FirstBuild) taps excess mental capacity of engineers, industrial designers, makers, and hobbyists. Think about how many brilliant people waste intellectual energy every night as they watch YouTube videos and play video games! FirstBuild offers the coordinating mechanism (co-creation software platform) and reward to its providers, who retain the IP on their inventions. For all of these businesses, providers must be volunteers and able to withdraw their service spontaneously because, presumably, the asset was not purchased with a gig economy in mind. I didn’t buy a car so I could be an Uber driver, and I don’t have an extra bedroom so I can let it out on AirBnB. Some might choose to do these things, but the business models do not assume this is the case. Now for some more interesting cases. What about parking lots, which are mostly empty? Should a shopping mall rent out portions of its parking lot at night to enable, say, real time crossdocking of freight in an urban environment? Doing so at night seems pretty safe, but what about during the day? How about your garage? Why not build a company called AirDC that connects pallets with pallet positions in residential areas in real time? Think about the value of a highly distributed, virtual distribution center in downtown Atlanta. Just as Uber operates a taxi service without cars, AirDC would offer a distribution center with no building. And my favorite: railroad tracks. What do you imagine is the utilization of an inch of railroad track? 0.001 percent? Surely we can do better! To review: the unifying idea—the Organizing Principle—among all of these businesses is: • Recognition of unused capacity. Why is it just sitting there when others might be able to use it right now? • A coordinating mechanism, usually via software. Uber and AirBnB, for example, are software companies, not transportation or hotel companies. Why isn’t the resource being used right now? How can we connect potential users with idle resources? • Voluntary participation by providers. Unlike contracts, which bind seller and buyer, resources in an Excess Capacity Business can choose to enter or leave service at their leisure. By definition, they are offering marginal capacity, and therefore must be allowed to withdraw for a time, as, for example, when they are at full utilization (e.g., in-laws encroaching on your AirBnB cash flow). In closing, I can’t help but note that the growth potential of an Excess Capacity Business is limited by…the amount of excess capacity! In these heady days of$60B Uber valuations (more than Ford and GM), let us not forget that Uber and its competitors are at the mercy of a public willing to spend its free time driving a cab around town. That pool is limited.

# GridStore paper award

Featured
I am happy to report that my colleagues Kai Furmans, Zäzilia Seibold, Onur Uludag and I recently received the 2015 Best Application Paper Award from IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering for our paper, GridStore: A Puzzle-Based Storage System with Decentralized Control. Zäzilia and Onur, in particular, made outstanding contributions to this work. Onur went on to extend these ideas in his GridPick system, and Zäzilia is going further still with her work on GridSorter and other things.
Below is the letter Zäzilia read on our behalf while accepting the award at the conference in Sweden:
On behalf of Drs. Furmans, Gue, and Uludag, we regret that we could not join you today!
We should say at the outset that the research behind this paper was collaborative in the fullest sense, with each author making unique and valuable contributions along the way.  But the paper represents more than just collaboration; it represents two research teams in two countries, with two previously independent streams of research, creating something neither team could have imagined without the other.  Gue and Uludag began with prior research in puzzle-based storage systems. Furmans and Seibold began with previous research in decentralized control of conveyor modules.  The research in this paper is a gratifying combination of the two—decentralized control of a puzzle-based storage system.
The ideas in this paper have already been extended in our own research, and it is our hope that others will move them even further.  We believe that decentralized control represents an attractive means of dealing with the extreme complexity that characterizes so many logistics systems today.  We hope that our paper will become just a small contribution to our understanding of these systems.  We are also pleased to report that a working prototype of the GridStore system has been built and is on display at the Institute for Material Handling and Logistics in Karlsruhe.  It is our hope that, someday, we will see these systems working in industry.
We would like to thank the editorial team at IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering for helpful comments during the publication process.  We also thank the U.S. National Science Foundation for providing the financial support that made this work possible.
Many thanks and best regards from Germany and the United States.  Enjoy your time in Sweden!
Kai Furmans
Kevin Gue
Onur Uludag

# GridStore implemented

Featured

One of the most satisfying parts of this job is seeing others take your work and go further. In this case, Benedikt Fuß, who spent time with me at Auburn and who is now a research associate at the Institute for Material Handling and Logistics at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, has improved the GridStore algorithm by adding asynchronous control.

As originally conceived, GridStore operates in stepwise fashion, with each conveyor module deciding its action and taking it according to a shared clock. An admitted weaknesses of that work was our failure to explain exactly how synchronization would be implemented in modules without a centralized controller. Enter Benedikt’s asynchronous modification, in which modules operate independently and without a common clock, yet seem to synchronize on their own. Notice the slight variations of timing among the modules in the video below:

Do I even need to say how satisfying it is to see this work implemented in a real system? Here’s hoping these ideas someday are applied in industry. Then, I retire.

# Logistics Automation and Us

Featured

Several years ago I began telling my children that I thought the greatest challenge for their generation was sensibly integrating technology into everyday life. It seemed at the time (and I continue to believe) that the blind adoption of rapidly advancing technology would have unknown and possibly deleterious effects on the human condition. Sounds like the subject for a nice book, eh? Alas, Nicholas Carr has beaten me to it with The Glass Cage: Automation and Us.

While recognizing the industrial and social benefits of automation, Carr points out that our inventions no longer help us accomplish work, but rather do the work for us. If the work is mindless or backbreaking, so much the better, but technology now threatens to rob us of many of the experiences that make us human. As I have written elsewhere, this point really resonates with me. I am reminded of a rhetorical question posed by a friend several years ago: “Why do I have to remember anything, when I can just look it up?” That is a serious question. The answer, of course, is that remembering—knowing—is a critical part of what makes us human. Machines look things up; humans know.

The challenge is to build technology that relieves man of the burden of work without robbing him of the satisfaction of work. Here Carr gives a huge shout out to the human factors research community, which knows a great deal about the interaction of humans and their machines, but which Silicon Valley has little interest in accommodating if that means limiting what can be done (and how much money can be made). Utopia, we are told, is life without work, instructing BeerBot to fetch us a cold one while we lie on the couch watching Netflix. Come to think of it, why can’t BeerBot just anticipate that I need a cold one!

Back in the industrial world, automation has changed laborers and craftsmen into button pushers and monitors—caretakers making sure nothing goes wrong. But as Carr points out, automation is not just a threat to the blue collar workforce. White collar jobs that involve design, analysis and decision making are very much in the cross hairs. If corporations are willing to replace workers with robots, why would they hesitate to replace a multitude of managers with Mr. Algorithm? They won’t.

The effect of technology on employment is neither the point of Carr’s book nor the point of this post. I am more interested in the effect of (logistics) technology on us. Is the logistics industry developing machines and devices that improve the human condition, or is it developing machines and devices that improve ROI? Are these objectives mutually exclusive? Must they be?

What is really interesting to me is the prospect that, in an environment of scarce labor resources, companies that developed and implemented human-centric work environments with “human optimized automation”—perhaps at a higher cost—might have the last laugh. What exactly “human optimized automation” looks like is still an open question, but I am sure it doesn’t look like a row of buttons and toggle switches. Here’s hoping that Carr’s book gets a wide reading in our industry, and that suppliers and end-users in the logistics industry find a way to develop automation that serves rather than dehumanizes us.

# The Physical Internet as Platform Innovation

Featured

I am writing from the MHI Annual Conference in Rancho Bernardo, California. This morning I attended a talk by Jim Rice from MIT on supply chain innovation. It was a thought provoking seminar that proposed a distinction between invention and innovation. He offered a definition of innovation that went something like, “combining existing technologies, processes, and information in new ways to deliver good and desirable outcomes.” The key—and I suppose slightly controversial—point is that innovation is a combination of existing things, rather than the creation of something new. He argues, for example, that the Kiva system is innovation rather than invention because the system is comprised of more or less already known technologies and processes.

Another point in his talk, following Christensen’s model of innovation, was to distinguish between sustaining and disruptive innovations. An easy illustration is the iPhone, which itself was a disruptive innovation; the fingerprint reading capability in the 5s was a sustaining innovation. One changes the game; the other continues the game.

It occurred to me during the talk that another, higher class of innovation might be defined—call it platform innovation. Some innovations are more than disruptive—they serve as platforms for other disruptions in perhaps completely new areas. For example, the internet was a platform innovation in that it served as a platform for thousands of other disruptive innovations. The automobile could also be considered a platform innovation because it gave birth to the taxi industry, the racing industry, and even the logistics industry.

I contend that the Physical Internet (PI) would also be a platform innovation, should it come to pass, in that it provides a backbone of logistics services, processes, and information upon which one could easily imagine many new innovations arising. One of the slides in Ben Montreuil’s stump speech on the PI asks, what are the PI equivalents of Google, Yahoo, and Amazon?—all of which owe their existence to the platform innovation of the digital internet. In a PI world, it is easy to imagine that hundreds of new companies would spring up offering previously unimagined products and services, which is one reason the Physical Internet is so exciting to think about.

If the reader will indulge me, I believe the concept of plug and work material handling could also become a platform innovation someday.  The Flexconveyor and GridStore systems are just two manifestations of the simple idea that one ought to be able to plug material handling devices together in different configurations to perform different functions. I have long thought that new business models might spring up based on this kind of flexibility. For example, imagine a material handling rental company that delivers conveyor modules to customers just as they need them and then moves them elsewhere when the need expires (think seasonal distribution). Or how about trucks with self-organizing loads based on the GridStore architecture?

These developments will take time, of course. In the meantime there is much to do, both on the Physical Internet and on plug and work material handling.

# A New Angle on Container Ports

Featured

Goran Ivanović recently published an article entitled, “A different kind of container yard” in the journal World Port Development.  By “different kind,” he means layouts based on the fishbone and chevron aisle structures we have used for unit-load warehouses. (Goran is a former student whose own work produced insights into aisle designs for warehouses with multiple pickup and deposit points.) The article is difficult to find on the web, so if you’d like a copy, please contact Goran (address below).

Here’s what a little fresh thinking does to the traditional container port:

For those unfamiliar with our previous work, diagonally arranging aisles, or in this case container stacks, allows vehicles (here, straddle carriers) to travel straight line distances when they otherwise would have to travel rectilinear distances (east-west, north-south). Reduced distance means higher productivity measured in containers moved per hour—presto, higher port throughput. The article also lists other benefits of the chevron arrangement, including improved storage density (I’ll let the reader ponder that one) and reduced rutting of pavement areas—I love this one!

A fishbone design doesn’t fare as well on storage density, but it has better distance performance than the chevron and the traditional. As the article states, “new concepts offer the ability to trade space for travel distance and traffic speed, depending on what’s more important to an operator.” Just like the warehouse.

I probably don’t need to say this, but I’m thrilled to see this clever application of “non-rectilinear thinking” to a new domain. If Goran can deliver improved throughput to even one of the world’s international ports—many of which are operating at throughput capacity, by the way—he will have done a great service to the world economy (yes, I just said that). Ports really matter, and in my opinion, they are ripe for a revolution in design.

What would a full blown implementation of these ideas look like? Here is a graphic his firm generated:

You get the idea, I trust.

This is probably a good place to mention that what looks like a simple insight is often more difficult to apply in practice than it appears. The exact dimensions and access points of a real port will differ from the graphics above, of course, so these designs should be considered conceptual. Russ Meller and I learned this with the original aisle design work, which was misapplied by more than one company that meant well. If only they had called us. …

Here’s hoping that someone in Singapore or Rotterdam or Long Beach sees this work and gives Goran a call. He can be reached at goran.ivanovic@yandex.ru. You can learn more about this work at his website.

First the warehouse, now the container port.

Rail yards, anyone?

# The social implications of crowdsourced delivery

Featured

Ben Montreuil recently tweeted a YouTube link to MyWays, DHL’s crowdsourced last mile delivery service in Stockholm. As I wrote recently in my DC Velocity blog, crowdsourcing companies are invading the logistics world like the “dot coms” of 1999. The innovations in this space are happening at breakneck speed—I was astonished to notice that the video was posted almost a year ago!

The MyWays video below features Carolina and Ola on both ends of a crowdsource transaction. Ola orders guitar strings and selects MyWays as his means of delivery. Carolina sees the delivery on her app and decides to make a few “credits” by delivering the strings on her way home from university.

Three quick features before I get to what is most interesting to me….

1. Ola gets to specify both a location and a time window for his delivery. Presumably he could change this information over time, as his plans change for the day. This is a step toward “direct to device” delivery that we described in the U.S. Roadmap for Material Handling and Logistics, in which delivery drivers (we were thinking of package carrier drivers—silly us!) make deliveries to the location of people (read: their GPS-enabled devices) rather than to addresses. It won’t be long before someone tries this.
2. Ola names his price, in units of “credits.” I love this feature! Absolutely, positively want it in the next hour? Then be willing to pay for it. Creating a real-time market for delivery pricing is an ingenious way to price a new service, and it absolves DHL of meeting service expectations. Don’t like the service you got? Then you were too cheap to pay for what you wanted!
3. Carolina “pulls” her delivery, rather than MyWays pushing it to her. Again, this feature absolves DHL of making suboptimal or inappropriate assignments that the “drivers” themselves would be better off making. The disadvantage, of course, is the potential for missed opportunities. What if Carolina had forgotten to check her app when an easy delivery had been available? This could easily be fixed with optional push notifications.

What is most interesting to me, however, is the end of the video, in which Carolina and Ola meet face to face. There is just something appealing about the social implications of crowdsourcing. We all love our DHL drivers, but to customers they are just an extension of the corporation—and they wear uniforms for crying out loud! When someone from the neighborhood delivers my package, I make a social connection that I otherwise wouldn’t, and the experience itself enhances my quality of life. Now that is real value.